2025 Election Begins: An Oral History

Guest post by Elle Burger. This post is written from the first person and is intended to provide a little background before we open a media analysis of communications published during the election.

After watching the write-in confusion during the 2024 cycle, I wanted to be ready early—both to ensure I met every requirement and to resolve any questions about candidacy before they became issues.

The election timeline was introduced as a topic in August, but the discussion was postponed. It wasn’t finalized until the late-September board meeting. That same evening, the board decided the annual meeting social would not take place because two board members would be traveling. A few community members objected, and spoke with the president in detail about why. Because our governing documents anticipate in-person voting at that meeting, canceling the event created real uncertainty about how and when ballots would be counted.

Let's Be Friends

Around this time, I met with Evan. After a year of watching meetings, communication patterns, and how information flowed—or didn’t—I felt strongly that working with someone committed to transparency and procedural consistency would strengthen the board. I was warned that running with Evan might hurt my chances, but I also knew how systemic pressure can isolate people who speak up. If I wanted the system to change, I needed to participate openly.

So we met, compared notes, and built a plan.

Few people knew me, which meant I needed to introduce myself—updating the website, distributing flyers, knocking on doors, and creating opportunities for neighbors to hear directly from candidates. With a long stretch between ballots being mailed and final votes being cast, the goal was to give residents clear information without relying on rumor or interpretation.

It was later this week that I saw the September Newsletter and the President's Corner.

Let's Work Together!

Next, we spoke with Toni, who we hoped would consider joining us, and identified Paul as another strong potential board member. All of us prepared candidate statements and submitted them before the deadline. I hand-delivered Toni’s to the clerk’s home, and when I missed her in person, I emailed to confirm delivery.

The reply did not come to me, but to Toni. The clerk had questions about whether Toni was a member, because she was not listed on the assessor’s database as an owner—even though she had lived in her home with her husband, David Rauh, for 40 years. She was not the only long-term resident in this situation, but the lack of her last name on the title raised uncertainty. The clerk said she would follow up the next day.

That call never came. While waiting, Toni took steps to resolve her membership documentation. But the candidate list was published by email at 11:30am the next day - before she received clarification. Seven names appeared, and hers was not among them.

Seven candidates appeared on the final ballot: Alicia, Mike, Elle, Evan, Louise, Paul, and Susan. We suspected that some candidates preferred to campaign independently, and some of the public statements reinforced that impression. Evan reached out to Susan to see if she wanted our endorsement. While we shared many values, she chose to remain neutral, asking to be “Switzerland,” and we respected her request not to be included on the Friends of Ken Lake website or materials.

With seven candidates already running and Mixx 96.1 preparing to close, Toni ultimately decided not to pursue a write-in campaign. Her goal, and ours, was to support the community without increasing tension.

Let's Announce Our Campaign!

The campaigns began. At the Fall Festival, I quietly handed out flyers listing the three Friends of Ken Lake candidates who wanted to serve together—trying to strike a balance between being present and respecting Alicia’s space as an organizer. Even though I felt unprepared, I knew that if I wanted to serve effectively, I needed to begin somewhere.

That Monday, I sent an invitation for all seven candidates to attend a joint forum in November. The idea was simple: one community, one conversation. Residents shouldn’t have to attend multiple events to hear from everyone. I offered my home as a neutral space and set clear communication guidelines to keep the event constructive. All candidates were notified before any additional flyers went out.

Two candidates expressed concern about the location, worried I might only invite supporters. We asked to include the event in the neighborhood newsletter so everyone would receive notice, but the request was declined. So we committed to putting a flyer on every doorstep, ensuring equal access. We began delivering flyers the next evening, knocking where we could, meeting neighbors, and answering questions.

We were not the only ones leaving flyers on doorsteps - other flyers came, and to our surprise they were also about Friends of Ken Lake! We were caught in a real dilemma; How do we speak to our own values and purpose without yelling over another group?

How do we address the claims about us without amplifying the statements made - statements we felt were extremely unfair and untrue?

These were real, emotional questions for us.

Let's Keep Talking

As the season unfolded, the messages circulating in the neighborhood took very different forms—some focused on process and policy, others on personal narratives. Because many residents later described “both sides” as equally inflammatory, the next installment examines the materials directly, using only quotations and documented facts.

We set our communication policy early, and discussed it in this article. Please use it if the article helps you better understand what we said and what we didn't say.